Anyone else really actively oppose circumcision?

I am uber-thankful that my special lady friend supports my endeavor. And she enjoys the results thus far.

 

To be honest I find it a bit creepy. Imagine if I was running around wanting to cut bits off of female babies' genitalia? Isn't that creepy?

EDIT -- Also, by that did you mean that these women do not want men making the circumcision decisions??

Well that's great! ^_^

 

Because you can do research without a penis? There's nothing wrong with doing research and making a decision on where you stand. Even if it is "pro-forced-infant-mutilation" Can't be bothered by that, as it is obvious to everyone you hate doing real research.

I'm on the fence. I really thought it was common practice until it came up as a discussion on here and so many were against it, I definitely understand how it CAN be unnecessary, and how people want things kept as they are born.
I also agree that making such a decision for someone who can't is a little barbaric. But parents are there to make decisions that shape a child, even if it does end up being aesthetically.

That being said, I still lean towards it more because of the cleanliness of it. I think it'd be harder to teach my son about how to properly clean it. And the idea of leaving the decision of cleanliness up to a little boy is also kind of barbaric

And finally, it is a little ridiculous that you don't want to make these kind of decisions FOR someone, but if your 12yo son wanted it, you wouldn't let him.
But yes, on the flipside, 12yo's are weird and probably shouldn't make any decisions.

 

It's still a totally common and widely acceptable practice.

Hey, at the end of the day you answer to yourself and God. If you feel comfortable with your decision then go for it!!!!!!!!!!!

If I have a boy, he will be circumcised.

 

Agreed! I was just trying to address all the issues brought up.
considering Hops here wants to ake sure everyone knows he's only referring to the practice of parents choosing the procedure FOR children.

 

Well parents use their best discretion and make decisions for their little ones every day it's a part of parenting. My child, my right to raise them as I wish so long as I'm not breaking any laws or abusing them. I would hardly call circumcision abuse considering all the arguments to the contrary and supporters within the medical field. When in doubt, consult your physician.

 

I agree. I'm not against it

 

I'm supporting you lol :afro:

 

.. That'll do

 

I think I'm happy agreeing to disagree with that group of posts in this instance

Anyway erm, this has been an interesting thread so far. Lots of different opinions. I am still baffled as to how someone female really thinks they can get their heads around what it's like to have parts cut off your penis when they don't have one, but props for trying I suppose lol

 

Oh and regarding the whole phimosis thing, I remember that haha, I had that in my teens a bit. It does definitely go away for most people as you get older.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis (complete with picture... lol)

It says there about steroid creams and stuff too.

Apparently it's pretty rare. One site said as low as 1 in 6000, the one below says less than 1 in 1000 and Wikipedia said 1 in 100 by 17.

Here is a good quote regarding this:

"Using circumcision to avoid phimosis is not advised. Less than one-tenth of one percent of intact adolescent boys per year will develop pathological phimosis, while the risk of post-circumcision phimosis due to adhesions is twenty-five times higher."

http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.co...agnosed-infant/phimosis/pathological-phimosis

 

As someone who is not circumcised I can tell you that cleanliness really isn't that much of an issue. As long as you bathe or shower on a regular basis you will be fine. I'm sure that if you are a complete slob who does not bathe regularly you can have problems, just like if you don't brush your teeth you can get cavities. The cleanliness argument does not hold any water with me.

 

Me neither. Should we not have other body parts either because they might get dirty? Having to keep clean is part of life. The vagina gets infections and all sorts but that's not a reason to start cutting parts off of it.

Forcing someone to cut off a bit of an organ which as a man is very important to you is 100% child abuse IMHO.

 

Sunshine, your post "I also agree that making such a decision for someone who can't is a little barbaric. But parents are there to make decisions that shape a child, even if it does end up being aesthetically.

That being said, I still lean towards it more because of the cleanliness of it. I think it'd be harder to teach my son about how to properly clean it. And the idea of leaving the decision of cleanliness up to a little boy is also kind of barbaric

And finally, it is a little ridiculous that you don't want to make these kind of decisions FOR someone, but if your 12yo son wanted it, you wouldn't let him.
But yes, on the flipside, 12yo's are weird and probably shouldn't make any decisions. "

-First, I think that making a decision to "shape a child" are inherent in parenthood. Introduction of religion (or not), how you educate your child outside of school (or not) ad infinitum. But, cutting off a body part, however small, can't be justified as "aesthetics", especially because it plays a huge, HUGE role in sexuality later. Cleanliness argument is a non-starter in my mind, because 60% of men in the world are not circumcised and it's not an issue. And just because it would be more challenging for a parent to teach a kid how to clean themselves...uhh that's not justification in my mind, either.

I think some people discount the amount of skin removed and the vital role it plays in male sexuality. Stimulation and excitement are a totally different ballgame between cut and uncut guys. And coming from a guy who was circumcised but who has been extremely diligent in gently tugging over years to restore myself, I vehemently disagree with any reason to take this vital part away from a future adult without their consent.

I'm tolerant about everything else in my life I suppose. Everybody is free to believe and do whatever they want. The only place I draw the line is where you do something that affects the health (mental or physical) of another being. C'est la vie.

 

no. no he's not

 

Barbaric and mutilated just seems a little dramatic. It's not OMG shocking, it's just something that was done regularly.
Reading some of these over dramatic post is like watching the evening new, you're just looking for shock value.

 

Speaking as someone with a vagina! Do you remember your circumsition? Do you know any difference? If you feel cheated by having it done...then dont let the next generation be done..thats the only way to stop it!

 

I agree that some of the anti-circ folks go for shock value. Bad approach. Bad tactic. Logic is the best appeal, IMHO.

However, "just because something that was done regularly" doesn't make it NOT barbaric. Stoning, beheading, torture, etc. were all "done regularly" in some times and places. Barbaric? Oui!

I do, though, think that "mutilation" is a fitting descriptor, in the true sense of the term. Act of physical injury that affects appearance or function...blah blah blah. I'd think it's fair to say that my genitals were...err. mutilated. Compared to what they should have been, I've lost over half my nerve endings and completely lost gliding function, etc etc.

Your thoughts?

 

i'm on the fence about it. i understand how it's fucked up to do that to someone who can't choose for themselves. but i was also circumcised at birth, and don't really have a problem with my penis as it is now. after looking at pictures of uncut ones...i think i'm kinda happy with the way mine turned out. not sure that i would want that elephant trunk look.

but isn't this part of the argument AGAINST circumcision? you can't miss what you never had, and you can't compare sensations if you don't remember having a foreskin....so why take it away from infants before they can choose for themselves?

are you a biologist? i am, and take it from me - evolution doesn't strive towards perfection. it just works towards things that are "good enough." anything that's good enough to live and reproduce gets to stick around. evolution is far from perfect. if it was, we would no longer have disease and illness. so this argument is not valid in my expert, biological opinion.

so now i'm not a real male if i don't have a foreskin and the manly infections that come along with it??

what about when you're a baby though, and routinely fill your diaper with liquidy shit that is bound to get in and under your foreskin?



if i'm ever lucky enough to have a son, he will probably be circumcised. i'm a little bit torn on making that decision, but my wife is 100% for it..so it'll probably work out that way.

 

Early man believed that nothing good in life was free, a god or goddess had always to be paid for beneficence, present and future. A man's sexual prowess was viewed as a gift from the god of fertility, and to maintain virility he felt compelled to sacrifice a small part of the instrument of propagation, the smallest part possible. The excess skin at the tip of the penis seemed a fair payment.

Hence, ritual circumcision originated as a symbolic offering of the entire male member. Among all ancient societies that practiced the surgery, the excised foreskin was dedicated to the fertility deity and sacrificially burned. Egyptian writings and drawings from 5000 BC attest to this custom, as do primitive tribal practices in which boys were circumcised not at birth when they were sexually immature, but at the onset of puberty, or just prior to first intercourse. In Hebrew and Arabic the term for bridegroom, chatan, derived from the ancient expression "one who is circumcised". For centuries the practice belonged to the sacred initiation rites of manhood and marriage. Circumcision was the fee man paid up front (so to speak) for life long reproductive license.


http://foreskin-restoration.net/forum/showthread.php?p=110106


A wash cloth before and after sex or a clean mouth are equally effective and leave the pleasure zones intact! Or castration! That would eliminate any kind of danger from that source!

http://www.circumcisioncomplex.com/fundamentals/

http://eewiki.newint.org/index.php/Is_male_circumcisionyou?_bad_for_

http://academia.edu/1403058/Circumcision_Sabbath_Food_and_Purification_Rites_in_Early_Judaism

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/psychotherapeutenyahoogroupsde.html

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2431-13-136.pdf



http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/11/offener-brief-den-juedischen-zentral.html

Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy. A good look at a book on embryology will show the development of the nerves and tissue and how they are the same.

What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of its archeological dimension - that it is the left over of human sacrifice. What kind of god is it that demands that of an infant? If the Bris constitutes the identity of the male, what about the identity of a Jewish girl? Or is this an entirely homosexual ceremony?

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html

http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html

Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizes the child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the Ultra Orthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.

http://www.************/mike.roloff1?ref=name